Sinister Romans

[Formosus Viriustus]

Sinister Romans

Left-handedness in antiquity

 

This subject came up in the 'I don't want to serve in the army' topic. The suggestion being that if you were left-handed this maybe would get you off the hook military service-wise since legionaries had to fight right-handed.

If only it were that easy !

 

That legionaries had to fight right handed, whether they were naturally inclined to do so or not, seems to me self evident.

 

My theory is that this interest in someone being naturally left- or right-handed is rather recent.

Until the 1950s everybody simply had to write right-handed, whether they felt like it or not. There was no question about that. Allowing kids to write with their left hand if they felt like it only came en vogue towards the end of that decade.

 

Whether, when left to your own devices, you do something with your left or your right hand is a natural tendency. But whether you are good at anything with your left or your right hand is just a question of practice.

Whether we are left-handed or right-handed, we all use a knife and fork the same way, for example. To me, being left-handed, the way we do it seems to be the 'natural' way and right-handed people in my view actually eat left-handed.

 

Is there anything known about this in antiquity ? Did the Romans pay any attention to that at all ? Are there any references to left-handed Romans ?

 

Formosus

Edited June 17, 2009 by Formosus Viriustus

[Nephele]

Are there any references to left-handed Romans ?

 

There was the legendary Gaius Mucius Scaevola, who earned his nickname of "Scaevola" (meaning "left-handed") due to having supposedly placed his right hand in flames in order to impress his Etruscan captors with his bravery. The plebeian Mucii Scaevolae of the Republican era claimed descent from this legendary patrician Scaevola, as other plebeian families also tended to claim descent from legendary patrician figures of the Regal era.

 

We also have the plebian consuls of 325 and 292 BCE, both named Decimus Junius Brutus Scaeva. Their additional surname of "Scaeva" is likely to have referred to a left-handed condition (in remembrance of the legendary Scaevola). Alternately, it might have referred to the loss of a right eye, as in the later case of Julius Caesar's heroic centurion, Cassius Scaeva, who is said to have lost an eye in battle.

 

There were also the patrician Valerii Laevini, whose hereditary cognomen meant "left-handed." Although it's possible that the original ancestor who bore this name may have been bestowed with it in a figurative rather than literal sense, due to his possible awkwardness.

 

-- Nephele

[caldrail]

Some gladiators fought left handed - a rare and interesting style because of the 'mirror' fighting it produced. The emperor Commodus was apparently left handed too and was said to have been proud of mastering left hand technique for the arena.

[sylla]

There was the legendary Gaius Mucius Scaevola, who earned his nickname of "Scaevola" (meaning "left-handed") due to having supposedly placed his right hand in flames in order to impress his Etruscan captors with his bravery. The plebeian Mucii Scaevolae of the Republican era claimed descent from this legendary patrician Scaevola, as other plebeian families also tended to claim descent from legendary patrician figures of the Regal era.

 

We also have the plebian consuls of 325 and 292 BCE, both named Decimus Junius Brutus Scaeva. Their additional surname of "Scaeva" is likely to have referred to a left-handed condition (in remembrance of the legendary Scaevola). Alternately, it might have referred to the loss of a right eye, as in the later case of Julius Caesar's heroic centurion, Cassius Scaeva, who is said to have lost an eye in battle.

As in the above quoted examples, a common interesting trait of many left-handedness related surnames (for example in Spanish) is that their mythic origin is usually related not to any truly left-handed character, but actually to a regular right-handed eponymous hero that in some heroic way lose the use of his right hand; an example of ancestral discrimination?

[Ingsoc]

Tiberius was left handed.

 

"He was large and strong of frame, and of a stature above the average; broad of shoulders and chest; well proportioned and symmetrical from head to foot. His left hand was the more nimble and stronger, and its joints were so powerful that he could bore through a fresh, sound apple with his finger, and break the head of a boy, or even a young man, with a fillip." (Suetonius, Life of Tiberius, 68)

[sylla]

Alexander III the Great of Macedon is also frequently quoted as left-handed; however, the evidence seems to be rather dubious, as apparently the only source that mentioned it is the medieval "Book of Jossipon" (X century).

[Formosus Viriustus]

Thanks for the information, all.

 

I do vaguely remember that story about Mucius Scaevola. But I didn't remember which hand it was he barbecued.

 

So I gather that the word 'sinister' was not actually used as a nickname. And Scaeva or Scaevola doesn't sound very Latin. So it's probably Etruscan ?

 

If Scaevola burned his right hand, wouldn't that rather indicate that he was actually left-handed ? Or was he, besides being heroic also quite stupid ? ( Or would burning his left hand have made less of an impression ?)

Loosing your right hand or the use of it, is not necessarily proof of right-handedness.

 

The left-handed gladiators seem to indicate that the Romans didn't particularly care about right- or left-handedness, except in cases where it really mattered such as in a legionary battle formation.

 

I'm very pleased to learn I do have something in common with Tiberius and Commodus. (I'm particularly impressed with Tiberius' apple-coring abilities.)

 

Formosus

[Lost_Warrior]

I think he got the nickname because he *became* 'left handed' by losing use of his right?

[Formosus Viriustus]

Being left-handed myself, I'm pretty sure which hand I would barbecue if I ever felt inclined to make such an 'heroic' gesture : my right one.

A right-handed person would, it seems to me, do the opposite. Or would those Etruscans have said : ''Ach, it's just your bad hand anyway, that doesn't particularly impress us. ''?

So I do claim G. Mucius Scaevola as a genuine southpaw. There !

 

Formosus Scaevola

[sylla]

Suetonius explicitly stated that Augustus was right-handed (cp. 80):

 

" He sometimes found the forefinger of his right hand so weak, when it was numb and shrunken with the cold, that he could hardly use it for writing..."

[caldrail]

The left-handed gladiators seem to indicate that the Romans didn't particularly care about right- or left-handedness, except in cases where it really mattered such as in a legionary battle formation.

 

It is true that the legions required a right handed swordplay because the post Marian heavy infantry formations dictated that only a narrow slot between shields was available in close order, besides any militaristic requirement to conform. Gladiators are a different matter. Fairness in combat was very important to the sport. A one sided fight was viewed as undesirable (even if the reality of professional matches was that experts were pitched against novices more often than not) and the question of fighting right handed was expected. That was how fighters were trained, and gladiatorial classes were very specific in their allowed attributes.

 

Now if a left handed fighter is introduced, we see something different. Instead of sword on shield, sword on shield as the basis of a fiar fight, we see sword on sword, shield on shield. A dangerous fight, since the shield cannot be used to defend against sword thrusts as normal. The gladiators must move quickly to avoid thrusts instead, perhaps using their shields to 'push-off' their opponent or distract him. What we get is a potentially fast paced fight but also one that might end very quickly.

 

In fact, the concern of left or right handed swordplay was important, and the betting may well have increased mightily at this novel and rare set-to.

[Formosus Viriustus]

In fact, the concern of left or right handed swordplay was important, and the betting may well have increased mightily at this novel and rare set-to.

 

Well, that in a close battle formation everybody has to fight right-handed seems self evident.

In theory you could have completely left-handed units. That might even have made some sense in order to cover your right flank, but I think there is no evidence at all that such a thing ever existed.

 

I did think that the information about left-handed gladiators was a a bit surprising at first. It would indeed give a left-hander a serious advantage, since he would be used to fighting in this way, while a right-hander was not. But then some right-handers might have particularly trained against left-handers and that would even things out again.

I think I can conclude from what you say that left-handed gladiators were a kind of novelty, introduced at some point to spice things up a bit and that it was an unconventional way of handling your weapons. So those left-handers would probably have been bi-dextrous in practice and able to fight both ways.

 

It seems to me that if you start practicing something from the very start with either your left hand or your right hand, it doesn't make much difference whether that is with or against your natural tendency. The more so if it is actually a two-handed activity. The best example thereof is perhaps right-hand and left-hand drive cars. It doesn't matter whether you are left-handed or right-handed. The kind you are used to feels natural and the kind you are not used to feels akward.

 

Fighting with sword and shield is also very much a two handed business. I don't see why a left-hander should be at a disadvantage if he learns to fight right-handed from the start. There's no reason that he couldn't become just as good at it as a natural right-hander. It certainly won't be the deciding factor in who actually becomes the better fighter.

 

Formosus

[Fulvia]

The Greeks used to bind the left arms of their male babies to ensure the development of right-handedness and so their ability to join the ranks of the phalanx. Is there any evidence of this type of behaviour in Rome?

[caldrail]

Well, that in a close battle formation everybody has to fight right-handed seems self evident.

In theory you could have completely left-handed units. That might even have made some sense in order to cover your right flank, but I think there is no evidence at all that such a thing ever existed.

There was little tactical advantage to that, and no, no-one bothered to gather left handed soldiers together.

 

I did think that the information about left-handed gladiators was a a bit surprising at first. It would indeed give a left-hander a serious advantage, since he would be used to fighting in this way, while a right-hander was not. But then some right-handers might have particularly trained against left-handers and that would even things out again.

I think I can conclude from what you say that left-handed gladiators were a kind of novelty, introduced at some point to spice things up a bit and that it was an unconventional way of handling your weapons. So those left-handers would probably have been bi-dextrous in practice and able to fight both ways.

Left vs right matches are equal. Neither has an advantage over the other. Nor was training against such an opponent fighting with the other hand readily available to the majority of gladiators. I suppose there may have been a 'suprise' element to a gladiator matched against a left handed fighter for the first time but that would have been the point of the combat in the first place, to heighten the drama and provide spectacle.

 

It seems to me that if you start practicing something from the very start with either your left hand or your right hand, it doesn't make much difference whether that is with or against your natural tendency. The more so if it is actually a two-handed activity. The best example thereof is perhaps right-hand and left-hand drive cars. It doesn't matter whether you are left-handed or right-handed. The kind you are used to feels natural and the kind you are not used to feels akward.

Up to a point (no pun intended). I don't have any first hand experience of training with swords so I can't answer that.

 

Fighting with sword and shield is also very much a two handed business. I don't see why a left-hander should be at a disadvantage if he learns to fight right-handed from the start. There's no reason that he couldn't become just as good at it as a natural right-hander. It certainly won't be the deciding factor in who actually becomes the better fighter.

Clearly the Romans thought otherwise.

[sylla]

The Greeks used to bind the left arms of their male babies to ensure the development of right-handedness and so their ability to join the ranks of the phalanx. Is there any evidence of this type of behaviour in Rome?

I have read some analogous commentaries on the Romans, but I haven't been able so far to find any Classical source for such statements.

In fact, can you provide us your source(s) on your previous statement about the Greeks?